Tag Archives: interactive engagement

Two-Stage Exam: Introduction and Resources

Posted on July 22, 2014 | 2 comments

Time to dive in! After thinking about them for a long time, this term I’m converting my exams into two-stage exams.

  • Step 1. I shorten the exam so it’s doable in about 2/3 of the testing time slot.
  • Step 2. Students write the exam individually.
  • Step 3. Students immediately — during the same class period — write the same exam again in groups of 4.
  • Step 4. Grade the exams as usual, but 90% of the score comes from individual, and 10% from team, with a guarantee that if you do better than the team score you get 100% weight for the individual (which very rarely happens, so I’m told).

Why am I making this change?

Four key reasons:

  1. Data. A growing pool of evidence is showing that team tests help students learn. See references below.
  2. Feedback. My classes are very large, so I struggle to give any personalized feedback at all, especially timely feedback. By re-doing the test immediately with peers, they get to immediately discuss the questions and come to the right answer (according to data).
  3. Exam improvement. Based on my evaluations, a small but consistent group of students find my exams very difficult and/or too long. Because I still only have 50 minute classes to work with, this change will force me to shorten my exams, culling and distilling to just the most effective questions that measure deep learning.
  4. Community. I value collaboration and building a supportive community. Research papers and instructors who have used this method report extra benefits beyond learning: students have more rapport with each other and are more willing to participate with their peers in class throughout the term. Also, Gillian Sandstrom and I have a research paper in press showing the more students talk in class, the more they feel like part of a community and interested in the class. So… back to data.

Interested? Here are some quick and effective resources for implementation:

  1. Videos by the CWSEI team depicting Two-Stage Exams in action.
  2. Jones, F., Gilley, B., Harris, S. (2013). Tips for successful two stage exams. The EOS-SEI Times, 6(9). Retrieved http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/Files/EOS/EOS-SEITimes_4.1_GroupExams.pdf
  3. Jones, F., Gilley, B., Lane, E., Caulkins, J., & Harris, S. (2011). Using group exams in your classes. The EOS-SEI Times, 4(1). Retrieved http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/Files/EOS/EOS-SEITimes_4.1_GroupExams.pdf
  4. PHAS-CWSEI Team. (2012). Two-stage (group) exams. CWSEI–PHYS & ASTRO Newsletter. Retrieved http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/Files/PHAS/PHAS-CWSEI_Newsletter_Summer-2012.pdf
  5. Brett Gilley, aka @ModernHydra

Data

Dahlstrom, O. (2012). Learning during a collaborative final exam. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 18, 321-332.

Eaton, T. T. (2009). Engaging students and evaluating learning progress using collaborative exams in introductory classes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 113-120.

Gilley, B. H., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43, 83-91.

  • A particularly well-designed example.

Leight, H., Saunders, C., Calkins, R., & Withers, M. (2012). Collaborative testing improves performance but not content retention in a large-enrollment introductory biology class. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11, 392-401.

  • The title might be alarming here… they showed no effect of the 2-stage exam on final exam performance (compared with material that had been previously tested only with individual tests). I’m ok with this. Not every study is going to find the same effect (particularly ones with some execution oddities like this one), yet this is still a “no-change” effect with no evidence that student learning decreases. Moreover, students still enjoyed the process and found it less stressful than the individual-only tests. No harm done, potential benefits.

Rieger, G. W., & Heiner, C. E. (2014). Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students’ perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43, 41-47.

Roediger, III, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1155-1159.

  • Two-stage tests might help to fight the negative consequences of MC tests: you remember what you answered (and thought was right), not what actually was right.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Rawn, C. D. (in press/2014). Embrace chattering students: They may be building community and interest in your class. Teaching of Psychology.

Zipp, J. F. (2007). Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests. Teaching Sociology, 35, 62-76. doi: 10.1177/0092055X0703500105

 

 

 

Email, RSS Follow
Email

2 Comments

Posted in from professional development activities, from the classroom, on course design

Tagged , , , , , ,

Creative Advertisement Showcase 2014

Posted on April 10, 2014 | Comments Off on Creative Advertisement Showcase 2014

A couple of weeks ago in my section of Psyc 208 we held the Creative Advertisement Showcase, which was a fantastic celebration of what my students had discovered throughout the term! Previously, each team of students identified a learning challenge they face, investigated primary sources for insight into understanding and addressing the challenge, and summarized those sources in annotated bibliographies and team abstracts. (See the Team Project Guide for a full description of this multi-part assignment.) The purpose of the Creative Advertisement was to get the word out to fellow students about research-based techniques and strategies for addressing the learning challenges they face. They truly were creative! Projects ranged from video and live games to posters to live skits and demonstrations to videos and pamphlets… an impressive variety! Check out some of their videos and websites (ordered by team #)…

Team 4’s Sleep Fairy:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGOWxnPizOk 

Team 5’s Culture Shock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyZcynf2jk4&feature=youtu.be

Team 22’s Motivation Makeover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6syynl18XA

Team 11’s Loneliness: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_qDfS_x4VtvLWhIZXRNS2pxVHc&usp=sharing

Team 18’s Sleep: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0xsEQGqsy3IVGczVVpZTGZkcGM/edit

Here’s a shot of Team 19’s Effects of Internet Use on Learning station…

… and one of Team 3’s Social Loafing game based on Apples to Apples…

Thanks to everyone for a solid effort on these projects and throughout the term! Study smartly for your finals… and remember that no matter how you do on them, that’s not a reflection of your worth as a person.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Creative Advertisement Showcase 2014

Posted in from the classroom, Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Posted on June 25, 2013 | Comments Off on Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.

Psyc 217: Research Methods

I went into this year especially excited about research methods, as I got to use a textbook with my own name on it! Wow, what a thrill! Perhaps reflecting this extra-potent boost of enthusiasm, my quantitative results were overwhelmingly positive this year. Interestingly, I seem to have connected especially effectively with my 10am section. Ratings from my 9am section were positive too (see the mint green bars on the graph linked above)… and on par with years past. But scores from my 10am section were the highest I’ve ever received (see the light purple bars on the graph)! Because I taught the two sections pretty much the same way, I’m not sure what can account for the difference. Suffice it to say, in my mind it was an especially awesome year… and many of my students seem to have felt that way too.

When I teach research methods, it’s often at 9 and 10 in the morning, and I do my very best every day to bring the energy. For many people, this material isn’t exactly inherently exciting. As one student wrote, “Based on what I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances at UBC, research methods is one of the most disliked courses offered at the university due to its sheer boringness.” Thankfully, this student continued, “that said, this instructor did a phenomenal job of teaching the course in a way that students found the material relevant and exciting (to the extent that this material can be exciting).” Such an assessment is the most common comment coming from my student evaluations in this course: Students expect this material to be dull, but I bring it alive. That’s exactly what I strive to do every single day. I’m satisfied that my well-caffeinated efforts are effective for my students.

A few other topics were noted by small subsets of students. Two topics drew ambivalent assessments: groupwork and in-class activities. People seem to have a love-hate relationship with groupwork. First, only a handful of people mentioned it at all, leading me to suspect that mostly people feel neutrally about it (perhaps recognizing its inherent challenges and strengths). The people who noted liking the team project still found it a lot of work, but recognized the value in it. The people who didn’t seem to work as well with teammates report viewing it as a frustrating waste of time. Each year I hear this dichotomous assessment. One thing I tried out last year in response to one particularly struggling group was a mediation meeting, during which I acted as mediator. It seemed to work well to get that group through effectively to the end of the course. To broaden this service and reach the struggling groups I don’t hear about, I am creating a form-based mediation request process for this year. That may sound like a cold approach, but I’ve given it much thought. After years of imploring people to come to me face-to-face to help solve their group challenges, I note that very few groups—or individuals struggling within groups—ever come to me. By formalizing this process, I hope to remove some of the emotion around “tattling,” and treat it as just another issue that needs to be dealt with, just like a grade change request. Hopefully this new process will help reach those extra few groups who are struggling on their own so they can move forward and perform well in group tasks.

In-class activities make material memorable, illustrate difficult concepts, up the energy and attention levels, and make learning fun. Every year, dozens of students report appreciating them. However, there is a small minority of students who don’t appreciate the time spent on these active learning adventures (yes, that’s the subtitle of my blog… see where I’m headed). I’m committed to student learning, and one of the hallmarks of my teaching philosophy is to get out of the way. And data supports my commitment to using active learning techniques (Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009; Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011; Hake, 1998; Prince, 2004; Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). I encourage people who are considering taking research methods or statistics with me (or any of my courses, really), to be ready to engage actively during class. If you’re not up for having fun while learning, my section might not be for you.

The last topic I’ll touch on is the textbooks. A few students noted how much they found my textbook worthwhile (yay!), with one student going so far as to say “I loved her book she wrote, very clear, informative, concise, probably the best textbook I ever used and read due to how clear it is to understand, with all the learning objectives.” I can’t take full credit for that readability (thanks to Cozby for laying such a strong foundation in his 10 prior editions!), yet I’m glad this text is being perceived as helpful. Unfortunately, the Stanovich text once again was voted unhelpful. The messages are useful, but even I find many examples dated and the chapters too lengthy for the points they make. Two years ago I wrote learning objectives and emphasized “get in, find what you need to know, and get out approach” in an attempt to make Stanovich’s text more accessible. Since then, there have been fewer complaints about Stanovich’s text, but a small, consistent group remain. I’ve been back-and-forth on this text for quite a while now, and I’m strongly considering replacing it with a few key peer reviewed articles/commentaries. I have some deep thinking to do in the coming weeks!

Many thanks to all my Psyc 217 students in 2012/2013 students who completed this evaluation. The response rate this year was 67% across both sections, which is my highest rate ever. And thanks to everyone for a really fun year of learning about research methods!

References

Armbruster, P., Patel, M. Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centred pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 203-213.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862-864.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.

Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 91-95.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Posted in from the classroom

Tagged , , , , , ,

Is “active learning” in the classroom helping you learn or wasting time?

Posted on October 18, 2012 | Comments Off on Is “active learning” in the classroom helping you learn or wasting time?

Check out my latest article for the Ubyssey (UBC’s student-run newspaper). And in case you don’t feel like clicking the link, here’s a copy…

 

The other day I said to my class, “Please turn to the person next to you, and together come up with an example of a time when you or someone you know experienced classical conditioning,” a concept which I had just described.

Many students enthusiastically took advantage of this learning opportunity. But as I looked around the room, some students were checking email, some students were talking about other things, and others were simply staring blankly into space. I thought to myself: why aren’t more people taking advantage of this chance to study? The midterm is next week! This experience prompted me to think (again) about why I ask students to engage in particular activities on their own during class – and I thought you might be interested in knowing, too.

Why do I ask my students to do things like this? Because it works. The broad framework of what’s called “active learning” has taken higher education by storm over the last decade or two. Every time I ask students to discuss ideas and problems with people around them, participate in demonstrations, privately write a summary of what they just learned or engage in a team test, I am using some of the techniques of active learning.

There are dozens of examples of studies that have compared courses or topics that use active learning approaches to those that don’t. The specifics differ by course and discipline, but the message is clear: active learning results in improved student learning, relative to traditional lecture format. Granted, not just any activity will do; those that are tied to specific, measurable learning objectives are best. My teaching practice is far from perfect in this regard, but I strive for such synergy daily among my in-class activities and learning objectives (and assessments too, but that’s another story).

So why is it that some students choose to take advantage of active learning techniques in the classroom, and others sit idly? Maybe the idle students are idle when I’m lecturing too, but I just don’t notice as much. Perhaps some students are unmotivated by the task or are failing to take care of their physical health and therefore zone out. Okay. But I think another part is not realizing just how valuable those active learning opportunities can be.

Based on research from cognitive psychology, I suspect that active learning works because working with the material promotes recalling it, which strengthens memories. It can also help people attach new ideas to existing memories, so the new ideas stand a better chance of being recalled and perhaps even applied in new situations. By taking five minutes to think up an example from your own life of a concept — like classical conditioning, if you’re in my intro to psych class — you will remember it better than if you didn’t. Even if you’re tired or uninterested or thinking about your weekend plans or otherwise don’t feel like participating in active learning, remember that. Learning is challenging. It takes work on the part of the person trying to learn.

On the first day of each of my courses, I warn my students: I’m here to create conditions in which you might learn, but I’m not going to guarantee anything. You must make the choice to learn. And that’s what it comes down to. It’s your choice to waste your time or to help yourself learn.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Is “active learning” in the classroom helping you learn or wasting time?

Posted in from the classroom

Tagged , , , ,

Responding to Student Evals 2011/2012 Part 3: Psyc 208 Special Topics

Posted on June 8, 2012 | Comments Off on Responding to Student Evals 2011/2012 Part 3: Psyc 208 Special Topics

Welcome to part three of my reflections on student evaluations of teaching from 2011/2012. Please see my earlier posts for a general introduction and reflection on feedback from my Psyc 217 research methods and Psyc 100 intro course. I have also posted graphs that facilitate comparison across all my courses and years I have taught them.

First, as always, I would like to thank each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. Please note that with respect to the open-ended responses, I appreciate and consider every thoughtful comment. The ones I write about are typically those that reflect common themes echoed by numerous students.

Psyc 208 Section 2 Special Topics: How social psychology can help you succeed

This special topics course is one that’s near and dear to my heart. I developed it with the goal to help students learn to learn. It’s an applied social/sport/positive psychology course, where I have hand-picked the topics and consistently encourage their application to each student’s personal learning journey. This course includes a group project for which the ultimate goal is to learn to identify a problem in your life, then find and evaluate research-based ideas to address it, then share your findings with others. See the syllabus for more information.

Last year in 2010/2011, I almost completely revamped the course based on students’ feedback and my own experiences the year before. You’ll see a major improvement in students’ perspectives on this course when you look at the graph comparing the quantitative data from the first offering in 2009 to last year. This year, I didn’t change much after that total revamp the year before. The evaluations from 2011/2012 are very close to those from 2010/2011, which supports my hypothesis that the revamp was a very positive change. Both “fair evaluations” and “clarity of expectations” are lower than where I’d like to see them, and they’re actually the lowest of all my courses last year. This warrants action.

Two main themes came out of the comments. First, the midterm was perceived to be too long. This surprised me, given that I shortened it from last year based on similar feedback, and do not recall that sentiment being shared with me during the semester. It seems that again I need to reduce the length of that midterm. Related to the midterm topic, a number of students reported being unsure about how the textbook material would be represented on the midterm. One student made the helpful suggestion that I note which parts of the readings are “need to know” parts. I’m not sure how I can do that and not compromise the test, but it’s definitely worth some strategizing about how I can better prepare students to integrate that material.

The second consistent theme was the groupwork. A few people seemed frustrated by it, some appreciated its place in the course and still others enjoyed it. I’ve often received such mixed feedback about groupwork. One comment about groupwork that I found particularly interesting was this:

Overall, your class and you were very engaging and I learnt a lot in the class, I enjoy the material quite a lot and find myself spreading the knowledge outside of class. I always enjoyed going to class and I liked seeing the team projects. I however do not particularly like team projects but it was useful for this course and in our future lives. I feel  team projects just take so much longer than doing it yourself and that when you get some classmates that do not care about their marks, it really puts more weight on the rest of us.

This comment stood out for me because it takes a common sentiment–that people often dislike groupwork because of relying on others–but recognizes its appropriateness in this course. Not too many people took this perspective, but it’s one that I hope to cultivate more. Its practical value is exactly why I designed this team project in the first place. Based on this and other feedback, I need to work on communicating that intention and the expectations of it more clearly. I think after using this assignment twice now (including tweaking it for 2011/2012), I have an even clearer idea of what I expect from these projects. I will do my best to communicate those expectations more clearly. One of the changes I made based on last year’s feedback was to adjust the proportion of the grade devoted to the group versus individual components. Interestingly, no one mentioned this individual/group grade proportions, suggesting this weighting is no longer an issue.

Last, quite a few people made comments suggesting that my overall intentions in creating this course are being realized (well, getting there at least!). Here a couple of examples:

Awesome course! I enjoyed the emphasis on active learning. It was a nice change from the classes I usually take.

Clearer guidelines for assignments and groupwork would be helpful. Otherwise, I really enjoyed this course- it was helpful both academically and personally.

I have enjoyed the setting of “team environment” throughout this course. Engaging students in the subject encouraged me to learn more effectively and study more efficiently.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I will definitely work on clarifying those expectations, and will shorten the midterm for next year. I’m glad that many of you found the active learning emphasis helpful for your learning!

Stay tuned for one more…!


Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Responding to Student Evals 2011/2012 Part 3: Psyc 208 Special Topics

Posted in from the classroom, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,